Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stockfish 14

stockfishchess.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 207 posts

Re: Stockfish 14

#151

Post by johtso »

ThomasCM wrote: post #137
johtso wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been wishing someone would make something like this! Always frustrated me that tools like aimchess and openingtree only allow you to look at the two sources separately.. supposedly, at least in aimchess's case, the reason being that the rating systems are different. How do you unify ratings? Edit: ah I see you don't, makes sense I guess. Might be interesting to have them both on the same graph even if the y axis…

As you say, I currently don't. In the future I might check the correlation between chess.com/lichess (when enough users register). Then I should be able to even calculate the chess.com rating from a lichess rating and vice versa. But there are many other features I want to implement first. I'm currently more focused on the statistics part than on the chess.com/lichess relation.

Yeah definitely should be the focus! Would be excited to see some of the stats aimchess has implemented.. performance in various phases of the game.. tactics.. advantage capitalization etc.

I also found that when clicking through to an opening on your site, it would always say "no games find at this position". Bug?

Re: Stockfish 14

#152

Post by bbrree66 »

vfc1 wrote: post #107

I feel like I've been playing against it a lot in chess.com, with the tremendous amount of cheating that is going on online, every 1 out of 6 or 7 games is an engine user (I know because I report them, and they get banned). It's great to have a better engine, but I feel that would benefit the most the online chess community is not a better engine, but an open source cheat detection system, if that's even possible. I…

Cheating has very much ruined online chess. I highly recommend lichess.com, anecdotally there seem to be far fewer cheaters.

Re: Stockfish 14

#153

Post by eru »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #126
ddek wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard because often cheaters will play 'clean' until they get behind or to a particularly ambiguous spot, when they will cheat for one or two moves. The really hard part of chess is what to do in the mid game, once you're off your scripted opening, there is still lots of material, and neither player has any significant vulnerabilities. A computer is useful here.

You could even just use computer to do near perfect theory openings and you can not charge any one for cheating here, and you can still gain more ELO there. There's so much variance you could do. One does not have to alt tab to input and mirror chess engine moves with Stockfish. You can use neural network only, which is trained on human players, and have a programmatic way for AI to have suggestions on where to move…

> You could even just use computer to do near perfect theory openings and you can not charge any one for cheating here, and you can still gain more ELO there.

That would be hard to distinguish from someone memorizing an opening book. So hard to detect.

Re: Stockfish 14

#154

Post by ThomasCM »

johtso wrote: post #151
ThomasCM wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you say, I currently don't. In the future I might check the correlation between chess.com/lichess (when enough users register). Then I should be able to even calculate the chess.com rating from a lichess rating and vice versa. But there are many other features I want to implement first. I'm currently more focused on the statistics part than on the chess.com/lichess relation.

Yeah definitely should be the focus! Would be excited to see some of the stats aimchess has implemented.. performance in various phases of the game.. tactics.. advantage capitalization etc. I also found that when clicking through to an opening on your site, it would always say "no games find at this position". Bug?

Thanks for the feedback. It's not really a bug. More of a communication problem... ;)

The openings page list your openings for white and black. If you click on an opening it takes you to the explorer which shows the stats for only one color (white by default). Therefore, if you play an opening for black a lot it will appear in the list of your openings. But when you click on the opening, the explorer will show your stats for white.

There is also another problem, that the detection of openings (on the openings page) respects transpositions [1] while the explorer does not.

Maybe I'll remove the link to the explorer as this seems to cause a lot of confusion...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(chess)

Re: Stockfish 14

#155

Post by mpol »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #131
knuthsat wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the problem is that most users that play with an engine don't play bullet/blitz. I do meet a lot of engine players on 3 minute blitz but then I just do very fast bullet moves and all of a sudden I'm losing with a 90 second advantage that cannot be recovered if the user persists on playing with an engine.

Maybe, but there are also few rapid "speed" runs, like from Daniel Naroditsky, while he has also faced cheaters, it doesn't seem 1 out of 7. And Daniel Naroditsky definitely would have good internal cheating detection even when the user does it sparingly, as he can basically understand most lower rated opponent moves, and if it seems too good for this rating, he can know this from just few moves. Check Daniel's rapid…

Different crowds probably.

Not sure what the aim of cheating is, probably going from a rating of 1500 to 2000 and the status that it brings. In the end you still win 50% of the games, just against higher rated players.

Playing against a GM would reveal your cheating instantly, it seems. It's like robbing the police station :)

Re: Stockfish 14

#156

Post by [deleted] »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #10
jeffbee wrote: post #7

I see that, like ed(1), stockfish is generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm the novice with verbosity. $ ./stockfish_14_x64_bmi2 Stockfish 14 by the Stockfish developers (see AUTHORS file) help Unknown command: help ? Unknown command: ? eat flaming death Unknown command: eat flaming death

I suppose you can interact with stockfish by hand, but it is designed to plug into a chess board app like xboard or others: https://www.gnu.org/software/xboard/

[deleted]

Re: Stockfish 14

#157

Post by Aachen »

trianx wrote: post #105
wohfab wrote: post #103

I am not too familiar with the pro chess world nor the AI chess world. But did anybody try yet to make the AI always try to achieve a draw?

Just train it to make it win. Then, anytime it is a bit in front, perform suboptimal moves, until things are even (those engines typically have a score on whether they are in front or not).

Not sure that would work in an end game though. If you are behind and make a good move, you accidentally win. If you are technically ahead and make a bad move, you probably lose.

If you can get reliably to an end game with only a king and a one or maybe two pieces left on each side, then maybe it can just be hand-scripted and bolted onto what you're proposing, but I'm not sure your proposal would consistently get it there.

Re: Stockfish 14

#158

Post by r34 »

vfc1 wrote: post #107

I feel like I've been playing against it a lot in chess.com, with the tremendous amount of cheating that is going on online, every 1 out of 6 or 7 games is an engine user (I know because I report them, and they get banned). It's great to have a better engine, but I feel that would benefit the most the online chess community is not a better engine, but an open source cheat detection system, if that's even possible. I…

I've built a cheat detection system for chess few years ago. Our client paid for creating a chess portal to play chess for money (not an idea I'd put my money into - and it's been dead after few months). Anticheat engine has worked like that:

- simulate a game using stockfish

- for each move (except few moves at the beginning) compare the move made by player with the list suggested by engine - if the move chosen by player is on the list generated by engine, than give that player some points (depending on the position of the move on the list)

- do some math considering player's ELO and some other stuff (I can't remember exactly).

Definitely not an ideal solution, but also open for improvements. Btw it wasn't my idea - chess players provided the exact algorithm, so it must have been known.

Re: Stockfish 14

#159

Post by kzrdude »

ivalm wrote: post #3

That’s amazing. NNUE has been a boon for stockfish as it enabled it to find complicated ideas even on low depths, which are often more interesting than simple tactical perfection. Really excited to see stockfish 14.

What's the qualitative difference? Must be more interesting than a few elo points..

Re: Stockfish 14

#160

Post by Aachen »

wkavey wrote: post #24
jaimex2 wrote: post #16

Rematch Alpha Zero. Have power consumption restraints. Go!

I think this is a good idea, but in no way should it be the only restrained game. Others could be time restraints (total time per game and/or total time per move), depth restraints (if they both work off of BFS/similar), and probably many other restraints that those more familiar with the engines can come up with. Definitely throw in a no casteiing game as well.

All fun ideas, but power draw and/or hardware cost limits seem essential for a fair game whereas depth limits and no castling are rather just interesting experiments.

Also, time limit doesn't seem that different from a power draw limit if you're a computer.

Post reply on HN